Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

These debates on the State's participation in EU legal and institutional co-operation are always welcome, both so we can examine the proposals themselves and the context in which they operate.

I wish to address the current context of the courts and their functioning before turning to the proposals at hand. The State had 3.27 judges per 100,000 people in 2020, well below the European average of 17.6 judges. The recent moves have improved this but more must be done.

The judicial planning working group's report has been addressed a number of times within this House and Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the report, and the Government's move to appoint more judges. I note that four High Court judges were appointed this week. I am curious as to how the other recommendations are progressing, especially the review of the District Court and Circuit Court areas. As we stated previously, the review needs to take into account accessibility and geography and not just to seek to rationalise resources. We all know that many District Courts throughout the State have been closed this century, which is contrary to justice being done and being seen to be done in our communities.

I am also eager to hear details of the judicial resources planning model and what the proposed more flexible working arrangements are. Obviously, these reforms, and the ones contained within this motion, will place pressure on staff in the Courts Service. They do important work and are currently at maximum capacity and their numbers have never recovered from austerity times. This is also the case in coroner's offices, which form an important part of the justice system. The Irish Examinerrecently covered the case of the late Mr. Collopy, whose family has had to wait a considerable length of time for a toxicology report. My colleague in Wexford, Deputy Mythen, has been working with the family to get answers. The long delays in toxicology results are causing families much anguish. This is the latest development in the situation up and down the country. The ICCL report setting out a pathway for reform is now a few years old and there are multiple other calls for reform. I have submitted a number of parliamentary questions on this matter and an update on what plans the Department has for reform of the system overall is important for the Collopy family and the many others like them.

The Irish Times this week contains an important and timely intervention from the former judge, Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy. The importance of the separation of powers goes without saying, but policies related to the administration of the courts are squarely in the remit of the Dáil and the Government. The voices of experienced judges are important and while we do need to be sensitive to constitutional strictures, it helps us to hear from judges, both current and retired. The functioning of courts must change, but at the same time the legal system is slow to change, as fundamental rights and responsibilities cannot be ignored. The former judge, Deirdre Murphy, raised some important points in her interview. One of her concerns relates to the increasing monopolisation of State work by a select number of firms, which in my view risks an effective oligopoly within the legal trade. The Attorney General's guidelines on how State agencies should brief firms is important, but a review into the State's distribution of legal work and the effect it has on firms around the country, should be examined. Judge Murphy stated: "I think the system is broken, there are too many barristers scrabbling for too little work, monopolies of big firms, the briefing policy, pressures on the smaller solicitor firms." She continued:

People told me I didn't charge enough. The bigger firms want to brief somebody who will charge a fortune so that they can justify charging a fortune...The bottom line is profit. Who is representing the ordinary person?

That ordinary person and access to justice must be at the heart of everything we do in relation to the justice system. Our consideration of these proposals are no different. According to the EU, the e-CODEX system is composed of an e-CODEX access point, consisting of an interoperable gateway, which allows the secure exchange of information over a telecommunications network with other gateways to be carried out and a connector to link connected IT systems to the gateway for the purpose of exchanging data with other such IT systems. The system also contains digital procedural standards and has supporting software products, documentation and other assets listed in the annexe to the relevant regulation.

According to the briefing, the e-CODEX regulation and the digitalisation proposals will facilitate electronic communication between member states in cross-border judicial proceedings and will be vital to the exchange of documents in certain types of criminal and civil cases. Again, according to the briefing, participation ensures the availability and use of electronic means of communication in cross-border cases. This is to ensure that documents are not refused or denied legal effect solely on the grounds of their electronic form.

The effects of the proposal seem positive, albeit we need to bear in mind data protection and storage concerns. We also need to bear in mind that some member states have engaged in the over-prosecution of political activists and played fast and loose with civil liberties. Providing for these proposals improve the sharing of documents but do not create a legal right to them being shared without adequate legal supervision that is acceptable.

I have some concerns about the timing of the process. The Department has advised that the State is not participating in six of the affected instruments or legal Acts. At the same time, participation within the digitalisation proposals within the three-month deadline was not possible. Therefore, again according to the Department, approval is now sought at this stage to allow for the making of the necessary opt-in notifications immediately on the adoption of those proposals.

From what the Minister of State outlined earlier, I understand he did get legal advice. The Attorney General has said no legal or constitutional issues arise but more details on the deadline and why it was missed would be welcome.

See this speech in context